Talk:SAT Pro II
SAT = Satellite? This is the first I've seen the info that SAT stands for "satellite". Where did that come from? I'd always just assumed that it stood for SA (series) T'remelo. \m/ 'DeeJayKTalk! 04:10, May 12, 2016 (UTC) :It is not a crazy fantasy of mine, I did some research a few months ago about the SAT, here's what's written on my little notebook: *Sat-30: 2001-2005 (SA160 / QM-AH-MG) (Satellite tremolo) *Sat-10: 2003-now (budget models) *Sat Pro: 2004-2008 (SA1260 AV Prestige) co-exists with the Sat-30 during 2004-2005 *Sat Pro II: 2008-now (SA260FM (2002–2011)) :Those are just raw notes, don't even remember what the "MG thing" is referring to about the Sat-30, but I suggest to check Ibanez catalogs "2001-2005" to find the trace of this "Satellite" nickname. --KainTGC (talk) 14:41, May 12, 2016 (UTC) ::Thanks for the response. I wasn't questioning the veracity of the claim, so much as wondering the source, as when I was researching it (fairly quickly) a few days back I hadn't seen that. Also, I was glad to see that you'd looked over this article as I was not 100% confident of the way I had described the bridge. I figured you'd be a good source to validate it since you have an SA, which I don't (yet). \m/ DeeJayKTalk! 15:01, May 12, 2016 (UTC) :::No problem, it gave my the opportunity to share a few information we may use later (like the Sat-10 page that is yet to be created, and the good old SA160 that used another type of non-Sat tremolo in its early stages, or the SA1260 that lacks its "Prestige" category). Moar work but it's all fun and games, as always :) :::I really enjoyed reading your SAT articles, your english sounds so good, with a nice flow and perfect syntax (and information is 100% accurate, it helps), besides I can barely read my poorly written articles of yesterday... Honestly I wouldn't mind if somebody could look over my shoulder to correct mistakes/badly written turn-of-phrases. --KainTGC (talk) 15:24, May 12, 2016 (UTC) ::::Yeah, an extra pair or two of eyes is always good. Thanks for the compliments, of course I have the advantage (over you) of being a native English speaker, for whatever that is worth. The other very American trait I have is that I lack any real second (or third, or fourth) language (I hope my high school Spanish teacher isn't reading this). ::::As for your Satellite claim, a quick glance at the 2001 catalog confirms what you said. I've updated the article to site the source for the next dummy who comes along like my thinking he knows something. ;) ::::By the way, the discussion on my adoption request continues to be debated. No pressure, but if you feel like weighing in with your support over there it might look a bit like a case of "he said, she said." Your support (if you choose to voice it) would be most appreciated. \m/ DeeJayKTalk! 15:33, May 12, 2016 (UTC) :::::hehe this is a good teamwork and it really gives a lot of motivation, I'm sure we wouldn't achieve 2% of what is done these days if we were alone. Poor Braham, he must have felt so lonely back in the days. :::::Just a detail, about the SAT, this sentence: "Only the front section of the 2-piece saddle raises when the tremolo arm is moved while the back remains locked". Sorry I don't understand this sentence quite clearly (maybe it's correct), in fact this tremolo uses 2 pivots/studs screwed in the table and 2 regular "knifes" on its baseplate like most floyd-like trem. There is the upper part we see in the picture (baseplate + saddles + knifes), and a "massive" block under it, hidden in the cavity, with the 2/3 usual springs. The whole trem is "a solid mass of hardware" (relies on studs + knifes to move), the trem is no firmly screwed to the table like some strat players do, it can move up and down (dive-bomb and pull). Finally it's a simple, single-locking trem (no lock nut). Maybe your sentence is correct so please excuse me, I'm bad at terminology with "complex" parts :p :::::Nice update with the catalog reference, thanks. Now the more I think about it, the more it appears that Ibanez did a play-on-word and both the SAT = Sat'ellite and SAT = '''SA T'remolo (your 1st thought) are correct. Who knows, they sometime like to make mysteries out of anything :) :::::About the adoption process, I kept silent so far because Noneofyourbusiness arguments were not easy to refute. However we've made significant progress these days, not only to add new models and to document many sections, but to significantly improve the whole navigation process as well. That is the point I will argument to support your candidature: both the categories and portals are "admin locked" at some point, so having you as an admin is our only hope to unlock the situation. You have my full support. Just give me a little time to present things on the good side (in a correct english if possible). --KainTGC (talk) 16:15, May 12, 2016 (UTC) ::::::Yeah, I suspect that the lack of any participation from anyone else on a sustained basis was among the primary causes why our dear founder walked away. In fact, I'm really amazed at what he was able to build out on his own. Having someone else to have a back-and-forth with (even if there's not always perfect agreement) is definitely helpful. ::::::You point out the exact section of the article that I am most dubious of. I'm not now totally sure where that assertion about only the front moving came from, although I'm pretty sure I read it somewhere. I added it even though I wasn't convinced it was correct. Your description here is probably much more correct than mine, particularly in that you've actually played with the thing I have not. It is a complex part, which does make precise description difficult. ::::::Re: the adoption thing. It doesn't need to be a refutation of the arguments being made (I've tried to do that as best I could). Just a simple note in support of my "candidacy" (such as it is), might help. \m/ '''DeeJayKTalk! 16:43, May 12, 2016 (UTC)